Headlines

Mario Loyola

Dependency and the threat to the GOP: Why we need a great leader

The prospect of a lasting Democratic majority, based upon a vast coalition of takers, is real. But it need not come to fruition, and if it does come to fruition, it need not last. The reason is that, contrary to what President Obama and his supporters evidently believe, more dependency necessarily entails less opportunity. This is because wealth can only be created through the efficient allocation of human and material resources, a process that can only occur in the private economy. The larger the share of the economy dominated by the public sector, the less economic growth there will be. Hence, the administration’s policies are certainly diminishing the possibility of economic growth — something that would be a lot more obvious already if it were not for the huge windfall our economy has found in the current boom in oil and gas production.

The near-certainty of lasting economic malaise if this administration’s policies become entrenched is the ultimate time-limit on those policies — and on the Democrats new coalition of takers. Sooner or later Americans will become so miserable that they will become desperate for change. That is what happened to the British just before Thatcher’s revolution.

But it must remain our goal to keep that from happening, otherwise we could see a lost generation.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

We need a happy warrior. Someone who will fight, talk back, and take it to the Dems without the Boehner/McConnell whininess. The current GOP “leadership” are neither, although Rand Paul is beginning to look promising. Want to see how Rand Paul comes down on shamnesty.

This guy seems to understand the process, but his conclusions are off quite a bit. If he thinks you can stop the downward spiral once it hits a saturation point, he is dangerously mistaken. For a reference, look up world history…

Democrats, even with occasional setbacks, are going to keep winning victory after easy victory if conservatives don’t focus on changing the direction of American culture. The so-called “low information voters” that Rush Limbaugh frequently refers on his radio show, swung the national elections to Democrats in 2012. These voters may know little about politics and critical issues, but they breathe liberal culture every day. It is no wonder that victory remains so elusive to Republicans, they weren’t even competing on the right playing field.

Conservatives can reverse this trend if they focus on breaking up the liberal lock on cultural institutions instead of the lock on the presidency….
Glenn Reynolds was spot on when he suggested after the 2012 presidential election that wealthy Republicans stop wasting their money on Republican politicians and buy women’s magazines, which virtually operate as a “propaganda arm of the Democratic party.”

As important as changing popular culture is, the most critical cultural institution that conservatives need to enter and change is education and academia.

Conservatives cannot succeed in changing the cultural influence of the education establishment without breaking the monopoly that currently controls it.

It’s all nice and good to point to examples of single great leaders having affected a transformation in times of decline or in other circumstances, whether it be a Thatcher on any of another name that could easily be thrown out for, good or bad, as the case may be.

But what is it with people who think the answer to having to deal with a single leader which you disagree with is to get yourself a single leader you agree with? Examples abound of single great leaders because those societies are structured culturally to look for and accept single great leaders.

We are different. And our difference is what has given us the form of government which allows us to not need a great leader, which as history shows don’t arrive until it is long past the need for one. And our history, our creation, was not based on having one great leader, but many good leaders who made up for their individual lack of greatness by substituting collaboration and determination.

Playing king-of-the-hill politics in Washington, DC with the goal of destroying king-of-the-hill politics in Washington, DC is a fool’s errand.

Look to the states for saving the Republic, not Washington, DC. Look for the many good leaders we have right now at hand, with governors who can answer the “Show me” with actions, not promises, for greater opportunity, liberty, prosperity, peace, tranquility and the diminution of power of the federal government by returning it to where it was originally vested, in the States.

“According to the latest data from the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly half (49%) of Americans today live in homes receiving one or more government transfer benefits.” That’s basically twice what it was in the early 1980s.

.
I bet that doesn’t include corporate welfare, corporate cronyism with the government and businesses that exist solely to provide services for one government entity or another.